and that the accused came there and abused her for abusing Manjula and dragged her to his house by beating her and that PW3 tried to intervene and the accused pushed him aside and that the accused called Manjula and asked her to beat her with chappal and that both of them began beating her and that when her parents saved her from the accused and when they were taking her along with them, the accused brought pestle and dealt a blow with pestle on right side of head of the deceased and that the deceased fell down. In cross-examination, she says that within two minutes after arrival of her father, he was beaten by the accused. She denied the suggestion that during the scuffle, her father fell on stones and received injuries. In my opinion, reasoning given by the lower Court for not placing reliance on evidence of PWs 3 to 5 is not acceptable. The lower Court commented that PWs 3 to 5 were able bodied youth and if really they were present at the scene, they could have prevented the accused from dragging PW2 to his house and rescued PW2. It is only when PW3 informed the deceased and PW1 by going to the house, both of them rushed to house of the accused. But for the information furnished to them by PW3, the deceased and PW1 could not have reached the scene of offence. Even though there were divorce papers between PW2 and the accused, PW2 is disputing the said divorce saying that her signatures were obtained on the papers without informing her of the contents
